The Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit

rocknrollchuck · 2018-02-08T19:23:37+00:00

We do everything by groups” and believe “that we hear the voice of God most clearly” through “conversation with others” and “passionate debate.

Funny, God has provided us His Word, the Bible, to hear His voice clearly. But yet she chooses the "conversation and debate" of human beings instead.

Is Christianity the only way to heaven?

“No, God’s not a Christian. I mean, we are . . . For me, the Christian tradition is the way to understand God and my relationship with the world and other humans . . . But I’m not about to say what God can and cannot do in other ways and with other spiritual experiences.”

Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." So what she is teaching is directly opposed to what Christ said.

“I really do not overly concern myself with issues of salvation, especially salvation of other folks — that’s God’s job description and not my own.”

True, we do not determine the salvation status of others. But Jesus did give us many examples to help us know whether we could reasonably assume that another person had the Holy Spirit within them and was living for God. Here is one such example:

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

And then in the second article, we see what this is really about:

Kershner begins her reforming of the church by first attacking the doctrine of God, telling the Chicago Sun, that we should get “beyond this idol of maleness that we’ve constructed both for the divine as well as for clergy.” Of course, an idol is a manufactured image, but God does reveal himself as male (although God the Father is spirit and has no flesh, this is how he identifies Himself to us). It’s beyond perverse to refer to a revealed attribute of God as an “idol.”

Why should we view God as female? Well, it’s so that little girls can become pastors, with Kershner saying, ““I wanted to make sure that little girls knew that God could call them to be pastors, too.”

I suppose women and little girls can do whatever they want these days, right? But when they change the clear instructions and directives laid out in the Bible to suit their new definitions, they are no longer following in the true spirit of what the Book says anyway. To call it Christianity at this point would be to redefine the term completely.

Red-Curious · 2018-02-08T19:45:24+00:00

I've actually done a lot of writing on the "No True Scotsman" argument, which only applies if there is no objective definition of a "Scotsman." If Scotish law outlined a clear definition of a Scotsman, then one could use that phrase quite objectively and point to the law that proves it. Someone else could come along and subjectively disagree with that law, but they're still not getting their Scottish citizenship if they don't otherwise qualify under the terms of that law.

God has authority to decide who is a "real Christian" and not. He told us his standard in a written code, the core soteriological principles of which are commonly agreed upon by virtually all branches of the faith (ex. the Nicene Creed). If someone says, "I really do not overly concern myself with issues of salvation," there's good cause to question whether or not she objectively falls within that standard (although I'll refrain from making any judgement on that point, per your request).

Let's assume she's a legit Christian (not to imply she isn't). Let's also assume there's no biblical issue with her being a pastor and that questioning the appropriateness of her theology/biblical interpretation is off the table (again, removing the "no true Scotsman issue from the conversation).

A lot of what she's saying is good. Complacency is deadly. Doubt is a necessary accompaniment to faith. Great. But the women who were moderating Athol Kay's forum also had some good things to say at times. Nevertheless, we see how that went down. The practical harm on a structural level of her being in the position she's in outweighs the good that she might otherwise communicate, even if we assume she was only communicating authentic, genuine truth - even if it were red pilled truth, at that.

To be clear, I recently wrote on the hierarchy of theology > praxeology > philosophy. If we remove the theological issues (avoiding the NTS argument), at a praxeological level we still reach the same conclusion as theology: society functions best when God leads men and men lead their wives. This works on a purely praxeological level even without theology because God designed the world to work that way.

When we put a wife in a position of spiritual authority over her husband (noting that this pastor's husband attends her church and is not in a higher position of leadership than her), we run afoul of everything the red pill knows to be true, even from a secular vantage point.

When we extrapolate this authority not only over her own husband, but upon an entire congregation as well, it empowers other women in the church to (1) follow in her example of spiritual leadership over her husband, and (2) reinvigorate their feminist tendencies, heightening the BB side of their hypergamous desires on a cultural level within the church. Not only so, but onlookers from outside the church are then given greater justification to amplify hypergamy's BB play on a societal level because "even the church agrees now too."

But I'm not even concerned about that part of it. The world will do what it's going to do. What's more concerning is the impact it has on the men themselves. Despite the cumulative impact these types of women have on the church and society as a whole, and the way this feeds into their dominant position over men, they still want an alpha to screw them. That desire isn't going away, and it's been proven time and again among countless feminists. But they've just convinced men on an institutionalized level that they must be subservient to a woman because she has a position of spiritual authority, which presumably comes from God - and how dare you even think about defying someone appointed by God!

No, the man must beta-up. He must submit to his woman pastor, who proves that it's fine for him to submit to his woman wife, and that he might as well submit to every other woman in society as well ... at least if there's a chance that he wants sex anytime soon.

Of course, if we agree that women are sexually responsive and not spontaneous, then any structure that stifles a man's innate authority to initiate with his wife is also going to stifle his sexuality as a whole - because she's simply not going to initiate spontaneously as often as he would.

Let me back up for a second. If women are seen as viable candidates for spiritual leadership and men are being influenced toward a beta mindset by virtue of seeing a woman in authority over them every Sunday morning, it follows that most men will defer to their wives as spiritual leaders by default. It becomes the path of least resistance and the most natural directive, given that the family is subservient to the church and the church is subservient to a woman. So, we have a a family with a beta husband, led by the wife on both a pragmatic and spiritual level.

In such a household, where will the man find his authority to initiate sexually with his wife? Perhaps his patience runs dry and his balls are blue enough in more ways than one that he finally makes a move on her. But now she is empowered to deny him. And if she is sexually responsive, what is she responsive to? Certainly nothing he has to offer. After all, he's not offering her anything she couldn't get elsewhere by flashing a smile, or if the man is "lucky enough" ... something more.

In the end, if we allow women to take the lead in the church, men become an interchangeable resource both within the church and outside. He has no value left to contribute. That's not to imply that his leadership is the only value he has to contribute, as the cultural model shows that women can, in fact, be effective leaders. The issue is that desire is dead. His alpha-ness is what he was contributing - and it is something women crave. But in this model, sex would become purely a matter of procreation whenever the wife decides she wants a child. As much as he may slobber over her, she will not be slobbering back.

Of course, I am speaking predominantly philosophically in all of this - suggesting what would logically follow from one chain of events to the next. But we know that at least the foundation of this rings true even on a praxeological level. We see enough relationships in the church follow this path to know what would certainly result. Theology is, in my view, the only pillar still supporting healthy marriages. Even with that pillar in place, we still see many marriages crumbling to what I'm suggesting. Remove theology from the equation (which is what the secular world wants, including secular RP) and I wonder how quickly and widespread my predictions would become reality.

This is why I believe secular RP is doomed without God - without RPC fortifying the pillar of theology in its appropriate context.

But let me address one more point: that this would kill the faith entirely. I have said on RPC many times before that God intends the physical things of this world to parallel spiritual truths. Physical reproductive acts are paralleled with spiritual reproduction, which is evangelism. Physical child-rearing (i.e. leading in the home) is paralleled with spiritual child-rearing, which is discipleship.

If we train people on a physical level to abandon male headship for female headship, and sexuality in the home is thereby stifled because the wife is not attracted to her beta bucks husband, then the God-given pattern for spiritual reproduction is equally stifled and the compulsion toward evangelism is lost. It's no surprise, then, that this pastor you reference notes: "I really do not overly concern myself with issues of salvation, especially salvation of other folks" (note how the article author bolded the wrong section?). What happens after a generation or two with extremely stifled evangelism? The faith dies. Why do you think God set things up the way he did?

And if men are not the ones leading the family in the upbringing of their children, not only do we have the practical impact of these problems propounded on the next generation, but we also lose the model for discipleship that Jesus gave us in favor of female strategies of child-rearing, which have already started to take root even among male thinking simply because the secular culture has pushed that agenda for so long. And what happens if the next generation isn't trained rightly? The faith will die. Why do you think God set things up the way he did?

Of course, I have not even gotten into much of the content of what she teaches ... but these are my thoughts nonetheless.

EDIT: I should note that most of this is based on her statement that she wants to reform the church. I'm simply musing on what would happen if she were successful in that goal.

ruizbujc · 2018-02-08T22:23:56+00:00

On the title of your post alone, emotionalism in the church makes this clear enough. I can't count the number of times I have watched people confuse their emotions with the Holy Spirit using phrases like: "I FEEL like God is telling me ___." Of course, by "God" they mean the Holy Spirit is guiding them in what they're saying.

In the days of old, the church was organized not by feelings, but by understanding. That is why Paul said in Philippians 1, "I pray that your love will abound more and more ~~with gooey feelings~~ in knowledge and depth of insight." Notice how "love" in the church is no longer based on knowledge and understanding and application of godliness. Instead, we get people like /u/GargantuaBlarg29 who have bought into the feminized notion that "Love is a feeling".

And what is the function of the Holy Spirit? What does John 16:13 say? "When the Spirit of ~~gushy feelings~~ truth comes, he will guide you into ~~having the best gushy feelings ever~~ all truth."

Or what about John 14:21? "The one who ~~has blissful feelings toward me~~ has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me."

So yes, the Holy Spirit has been exchanged for feelings. Men are proficient in knowledge, truth, understanding, application. Women are proficient in feelings. We've replaced masculinity in Scripture with what better suits the feminine. I can't imagine a female pastor whose goal is to push feminist ideologies is going to do any good here. She will not be restoring our understanding of the Spirit to that of knowledge and truth and understanding. She will be reinforcing the notion that "feelings" dictate truth and that "feelings" are how we know when God is talking to us. This is already evident in that she looks to conversations with others as her primary source of truth over Scripture itself.

Tag: /u/rocknrollchuck (in that I'm linking to your conversation and wanted to affirm your position)

SeamusAwl · 2018-02-08T19:47:35+00:00

First she is a female pastor. nuff said. Not that female's cannot pastor other females. But the fact is she is pastoring men, and Paul advised against that because women were created for men. It breaks God's hierarchy of man being the head of his family.

Red-Curious · 2018-02-09T05:55:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Whitified · 2018-02-08T19:09:37+00:00

Give me your take on this "Pastor"

why is the pastor female

who's bitch is this

Gaffer1976 · 2018-02-08T18:19:18+00:00

If she was ever baptized under the trinitarian formula, with water, she is a Christian. A bad, misinformed Christian perhaps, but a Christian nonetheless. Other than that, what is there to say. She is a material heretic, a feminist, a left wing ideologue pretending to be a pastor or souls. She is a liar. Anyway, Paul said let your wimmen be silent in church.

Title	The Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit
Author	Rollo-Tomassi
Upvotes	15
Comments	44
Date	February 8, 2018 5:51 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/7w6n4x/the_feminine_imperative_has_replaced_the_holy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/the-feminine-imperative-has-replaced-the-holy.302041 https://theredarchive.com/post/302041

Comments